E-300 vs Athlon 64 FX-62
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2665 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.24 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Athlon 64 (Desktop) | AMD E-Series |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2009) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 22 August 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $28 | $200 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus support | 1000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FT1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | DDR3-1066 RAM (sin. chan.), PCIe 2 [?], MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon 64 FX-62 outperforms E-300 by 192% in Passmark.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Athlon 64 FX-62 outperforms E-300 by 156% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 18 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 FX-62 is a desktop processor while E-300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-62 and E-300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
